Klaus Ebner

English: Welcome to the Commons, Klaus Ebner!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Filnik 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:KlausEbner.jpg

---

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lose.JPG

Pay attention to copyright

Image:Lose.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Ohne eine explizite Freigabe des Verlags an permissions-commonswikimedia.org wird dieses Bild gelöscht werden müssen. Die Freigabe muss das Bild zwingend unter eine freie Lizenz stellen. Lupo 08:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ich hab's wiederhergestellt. Sende nun Deine Freigabe (die auch erklären sollte, wieso Du die Urheberrechte an dem auf dem Cover verwendeten Bild hast) an obige e-mail-Adresse. Sonst wird's wieder gelöscht werden. Lupo 14:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright violation

File:Lose.JPG is used in the English Wikipedia article Klaus Ebner, it is the book cover for the book "Lose". (It's a photo of a woman blowing the seeds off a Dandelion.) But the photo on that cover is not free, the original photographer is Jan Gropp and he has not released it under any free license.

Here's the details:

File:Lose.JPG was uploaded to Commons by User:Klaus Ebner. Klaus has tagged the image as public domain and even sent in an OTRS ticket since the copyright status was questioned before (see section above).

The user-account is a global account so it is the same user both on Wikipedia and on Commons. User:Klaus Ebner has been blocked indefinitely at the English Wikipedia for sockpuppeting.

I used Google image search to check the image. (You can drag and drop images into the search field and Google will list identical and similar images on the net.) The search turned up this:

• The same photo, but in colour and with the copyright notice "©Pixelio (Jan Gropp)/Symbolbild".
• http://www.blickreflex.de/people.htm – Web page of the photographer Jan Gropp. You can see the photo three rows down. Click on the photo to enlarge it and you can see it is the exact same photo as used in File:Lose.JPG. (Compare the hairs under the chin if you are not convinced.)

The contact page of Jan Gropp lists his phone number, and since I speak some German I phoned him. Jan Gropp took a look at File:Lose.JPG and confirmed that it is his photo. He said he has never released that photo under any free license. But Klaus Ebner may have licensed the image from some image bureau to use it on the book cover, so the book cover itself perhaps is not a copyright violation.

I will contact the admins here at Commons to have the image deleted.

Klaus Ebner also uploaded the book cover File:Vermells-Ebner.jpg, which is also used in his Wikipedia article. (It's a red photograph of bubbles on water.) Since Klaus lied about the copyright status of one image it makes me wonder about that image too. The image page tells who designed the book cover, but doesn't tell who took the photograph of the bubbles. So the copyright information for that image seems incomplete. Unfortunately Google image search did not turn up any useful information about that image. I think that File:Vermells-Ebner.jpg also should be deleted from Commons and if the English Wikipedia want to use it they can upload it locally and tag it as "fair use" instead.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See my answer on this false allegation on David's talk page. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved your discussion back to this page, see below. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, David. Since the speedy deletion block points to this page, it is good and makes sense to have it here. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Another detail to the Vermells photo of the "bubbles". Christof Pelz used the image database (CD) of Corel, which he purchased for his work. All images are on this CD are free for professional use - and they don't contain any hint who the original photographer was. As already stated, Pelz may be contacted through his Website.--Klaus Ebner (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your allegation

David, I was just informed about your allegation. This allegation is false and a defamatory statement. I never lied on the book cover. Edition Nove created this book cover in 2007, and I received even an email from them that the rights are in my hands.

What you say about this photograph of course, I cannot verify, and if it is true that the publisher stole the photo, then the publisher is responsible for it and lied to me. Of course I still have the emails (which I also submitted for the rights check if I remember correctly) so I can easily prove this. So - the publisher says that I would have the rights on this cover, which I submitted. I think the right on the cover is another right than that on the photo. If there has been a copyright violation by the publisher, then the photographer should contact them. I am not sure if it would be legal to delete the cover from Commons because this books has been printed and is still available. I would expect that this affair would have to be handled between Edition Nove and the photographer.

Your second allegation is even more false. The artist of the Vermells cover is a personal friend of mine, and he used and changed an image, which is free for this use (he bought the graphics package, which he needs and uses in his profession). So he is the owner of the copyright, and he released the cover for this use. I also submitted his statement (or maybe he sent it himself, I don't remember anymore) to Commons.

• So first I ask you to withdraw your saying that I would be a liar.
• Second, if you contact the admins, then please tell them the whole truth that you know now. Then I guess it would be to decide on how to act in such a situation.
• Third, I ask you to withdraw all your false allegations about the Vermells cover.

I also want to mention that my blocked account on the English Wikipedia has nothing to do with these graphic files. I was blocked because it is forbidden to contribute to one's own article, what I did. But it is not forbidden to upload my own photos and the scans of the book covers as long as I own the rights on them. I only uploaded the two book covers that you mentioned, because I have their rights (even if there might be a problem with the photo on the Edition Nove cover now). I know that for example for the Hominide book someone used the cover, too, but I think this was under this fair use modality, which is possible on the English Wikipedia and because this cover is displayed on every Internet store that offers the book. I did never upload the Hominide cover because the publisher still holds the rights. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Klaus, there are many things you seem to not understand:

1: Of course you yourself can verify what I say about File:Lose.JPG. You can follow the links I gave in my message above and see for yourself. And since you speak German you can also call that photographer and talk to him, just as I did. I link to his contact page in my message above, there you can find his phone number.

2: You are now informed of the copyright violation you are doing. So no, it is not up to that photographer to clean up your mess. Instead it is now your problem since you have now been informed that you are doing that crime.

3: No, Commons has no legal obligation to keep an image. Commons can delete any image as they see fit. Commons instead has a legal obligation to delete any images that violates or are believed to violate copyright.

4: File:Vermells-Ebner.jpg still lacks information about who took that photograph. So it is still problematic. (And experience has shown that we can't trust anything you claim.)

5: You were blocked for sockpuppeting. That you used all those accounts to create and edit the article about yourself just added to the mess. If you bother to follow the links in my message above you can read what the blocking admins wrote when they blocked you.

You are repeatedly breaking our rules. The best thing you can do is to leave Wikipedia, since anyone searching your name on the internet can find the silly things you are doing here. So your attempts at marketing yourself by using Wikipedia is likely to backfire and instead give you a bad reputation.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to do some comments:

ad 3 "legal obligation": I didn't mean it like that. I meant that there would not be a legal requirement to delete it. I stumbled over the foreign language, sorry for that.

ad 5: "you are repeatedly breaking our rules" - NO: I was repleatedly breaking these rules. Of course I am aware that you don't want to believe me, and after the turmoil I caused with my doings up to the "trial" you mentioned, I even have some understanding for that.

ad 5: "attempts at marketing yourself by using Wikipedia". No, I reject this saying and I also explained it at the trial (before the blocking I was able to answer, which has also been stored, as you probably know): I did not want to have wrong information about me in Wikipedia. Some well-known authors repeatedly said in newspaper interviews and on TV (the Austrian Franzobel is an excellent example for that), that Wikipedia writes partly wrong things about them (and their problem is that many journalists just copy this wrong information). This was my motivation, not any "marketing idea".--Klaus Ebner (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lose.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lose.JPG has now been deleted. The deleting admin used the following deletion reason:

"Copyright violation: The photo on that book cover was taken by Jan Gropp. I have spoken to Jan and he says he has not released it under any free license. The uploader of the image has now confirmed that he doesn't know the exact source of the ph"

For future reference, below is a copy of the messages from File talk:Lose.JPG, since that talkpage probably will be deleted since it is now an orphaned file talkpage.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I just received an email by Jan Gropp in which he tells me that it would be ok for him if he as photographer is mentioned in the record. Now I ask how you could delete so quickly without waiting for any defense or correction. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The publisher took the photo from the online picture database Pixelio. The database states that the use is allowed for a multitude of cases, including book covers (License rules (in German) of Pixelio). This proves that the use of the picture by the publisher WAS NOT A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!! In addition, as I said before, even the photographer agreed to keep the cover and simply add his name as the photographer of the picture on the cover. This information could be added in the metatext of the book cover. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall, their conditions look somewhat complicated, not to say strange, to me. No commercial use, but allowed is the use for book covers (which I would see as commercial use). This may be at least a formal problem, as we expressedly require all uploads to be free for "commercial use". However, it seems our definitions of commercial use are quite different. Do you have the link to the image in question on Pixelio? --Túrelio (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Commercial use" means that you directly sell the photo. In this case the photo was used to create a book cover. Such things, including many others (flyers, even TV broadcast!, etc.) are expressly stated as allowed. Here is the link to the photo in the Pixelio DB. The license statement is here (in German).--Klaus Ebner (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. After seeing this, I have to say that the credit in Lose.JPG was incorrect. It should have been like "Derivative of original work by www.JenaFoto24.de / Pixelio". But the largest problem for undeletion of the image seems to be the restriction to non-commercial use. This question should eventually be discussed in general, as only this moment I have detected more Pixelio-derived images on Commons, which will have the same problem. --Túrelio (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I do not agree with this deletion and with the allegations. I received a confirmation letter from the publisher Edition Nove in 2008 that I have all rights on the book cover. This mail has been stored to the OTRS database:

(Citation): Une autorisation pour utiliser ce fichier via la (les) licence(s) ci-dessous a été vérifiée et archivée dans le système OTRS ; elle est ici pour les agents disposant d'un accès sur OTRS. Pour vérifier cette autorisation, n'hésitez pas à contacter un membre de l'équipe OTRS.

I already contacted the publisher to clarify, and I also contacted the photographer David had mentioned. So far, no answer from both. I will continue reporting here.--Klaus Ebner (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Eventually the publisher didn't really understand what you meant by "all rights", as in former times it would have been very unusual to distribute a cover image under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

End of text copied from File talk:Lose.JPG. --David Göthberg (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

To Túrelio: Hm, this may be (although "all rights" were the words of the publishing house"). The photographer, Jan Gropp, just told me in his answer mail that he saved the image to image databases which allow the use, but usually require to mention the source. It is, unfortunately, a fact that this source has not been mentioned by the publisher in the book. We still don't know from where the publisher took the photo because the publisher's answer is still outstanding. I will go on tracking that and will report here. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Vermells-Ebner.jpg

File:Vermells-Ebner.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

David Göthberg (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

David, the emails of the publisher (for Lose) and of the creator of the Vermells cover have been stored by the admins of Commons. There is a kind of repository which holds this information!

And stop with your false allegations. I did NOT commit any crime. I already sent an email to the publisher to clarify this affair. Concerning the Vermells cover, it is you who are totally wrong.--178.190.93.71 07:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, you say that there would not be information about who created the Vermells cover. This is not true. Read the Vermells page in Commons. All is there: Christof Pelz, Grafifant Design. --178.190.93.71 07:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, seems that I wasn't logged in.--Klaus Ebner (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

All information of the creator was correctly sent by email at the time of uploading and stored to the database. He used graphic files from a graphics package that he purchased for such usage. If you need further information from him or want to verify directly, please contact him: Grafifant Website - all contact information of Christof Pelz is available from his website. (He may be contacted in German or English). --Klaus Ebner (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The image page states who designed that book cover. But that book cover is a derivative work of the photo used in that cover. You have twice stated on this talkpage that the designer Christof Pelz took the photo from a commercial image collection. We don't know who took the photograph used in that design and what license that photograph was released under. Without that information File:Vermells-Ebner.jpg can not be kept.

The rules here at Commons and the law in most countries (including Austria) says that you have to attribute the photographer, even if the photographer has released the image under a free license. And most such licenses also state that the photographer must be attributed. We even have to attribute the photographer of images that are old enough to be public domain.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not true in this contact. If you buy a photo with a image gallery, in this case from Corel, which states that you get all rights and where the real photographer isn't even known, I know no law in the world that would forbid the use. --188.22.103.231 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)--Klaus Ebner (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way - if you mean these rules serious, you should delete almost all book covers from Wikipedia Commons, because in most cases there is no hint to the original photographer of the pictures used. --188.22.103.231 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)--Klaus Ebner (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)